Infectious Disease Practitioner

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

For 4 and a half years, I have followed the RaDonda Vaught medication error that led to the unfortunate death of a human being. I am not alone. Nurses across the country have followed the case with anxiety and fear, knowing a guilty verdict might have the potential to challenge basic tenets of care.

According to Kaiser Health News, nurses are “raging and quitting” following the announcement of a guilty verdict for two felonies: criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult.

Thousands of nurses have claimed they could arrive in Nashville, Tenn., on May 13, the day Ms. Vaught is to be sentenced, to protest the conviction. Others have stated they believe justice is being conducted, as their sympathies lie with the victim, Charlene Murphey, who died 12 hours after being unable to draw breath, paralyzed from the inadvertent dose of vecuronium given intravenously by her nurse.

How should we feel as clinicians? What does this guilty verdict mean for nurses across the country as Ms. Vaught waits to receive a sentence that could imprison her for up to 8 years, according to sentencing guidelines?

My belief is that it is understandable to feel passionately about this case, including what it could mean to an era of “just culture” that nursing organizations have promoted. The concept of just culture looks at medication/nursing errors as opportunities for growth to avoid future errors, not as scenarios for punitive action. With the guilty verdict in Ms. Vaught’s case, nurses (and facilities) fear that nurses will avoid coming forward after mistakes, leading to cover-ups and a culture perspective.

Will nurses be hesitant to report errors (especially significant errors) that lead to patient harm? Will we fear retribution and reprisal for being truthful?

I believe that Ms. Vaught’s criminal case has changed little in the political landscape of caregiving. Before you let loose with a loud expletive (or two), hear me out.

When a patient dies from unintentional harm, someone must be held accountable. Society needs a scapegoat, and unfortunately, excrement slides downhill to the lowest common denominator, which may be the nurse. Initially, Ms. Vaught was contacted by her state licensing board (Tennessee) and informed there would be no professional repercussions for her mistake. That decision did not hold. She was later indicted criminally for the death of her patient. She also had her nursing license revoked.

Why? The hospital where she worked was threatened with Medicare reprisal if systemic issues were not addressed following the incident; for example, a bar-coding device was not available for Ms. Vaught to use prior to administering the vecuronium, and paralytic agents were stored unsafely in a Pyxis MedStation, readily available for any nurse to obtain via override.

In fact, the number of overrides performed by all nurses caring for Ms. Murphey in the days leading to her death was alarming, leading reviewers to assume that time to acquire medication for inpatients was a problem.

Ms. Vaught herself, stating the obvious on talk shows, said she should not have performed an override, that the situation was “not an emergency” and she should have taken time to check that Versed (midazolam) was available by the generic name and not the “VE” she entered as a search mechanism into the machine. She also stated she was “distracted” by a trainee assigned to her at the time.

We have all been there, feeling rushed to perform a task under stressful situations, skipping safety guidelines to sedate a patient while radiology is waiting. Someone is always on our a**, waiting to get to the next task, the next patient, the next admission, the next pseudo-emergency called nursing workload.

It never ends.

Which is why I wish to emphasize what the Ms. Vaught guilty verdict really means for nurses.

It means we must never forget that our actions have the potential to harm, even kill, our patients.

We must never forget that repercussions and reprisal may occur, whether personal guilt that may prove more damaging than the prison sentence Ms. Vaught might receive, or problems that could result if nurses attempt to hide or subvert medication issues.

In Ms. Vaught’s case, she did not document the medication that had been given to Ms. Murphey, facts the prosecution seized on to proclaim her guilt. Why? We can only guess at this point. But her claims of truthfulness need to be balanced by what occurred, and the facts are that she did not document the error after administering vecuronium that night.

When reflecting on this verdict, we need to remember a patient died, and she did so horribly, being unable to draw breath. This should never happen during our watch, ever, and as clinicians, we need to be vigilant.

In summary, protest if you believe justice has been too harsh or unfair, and that nurses may be fearful as a result. But please spare a moment to realize that someone should protest for Ms. Murphey as well. We cannot bring her back, nor can we right the system issues that may have led to her death.

But we should protest for safer systems, for improved staffing, for a need to catch our collective breaths, and a day to work and nurture patients when someone is not constantly on our a**. Only then will nurses be protected from unjust reprisal, from needing to be the lowest common denominator of guilt.

Ms. Goodman is a researcher and consultant in Libertyville, Ill. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For 4 and a half years, I have followed the RaDonda Vaught medication error that led to the unfortunate death of a human being. I am not alone. Nurses across the country have followed the case with anxiety and fear, knowing a guilty verdict might have the potential to challenge basic tenets of care.

According to Kaiser Health News, nurses are “raging and quitting” following the announcement of a guilty verdict for two felonies: criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult.

Thousands of nurses have claimed they could arrive in Nashville, Tenn., on May 13, the day Ms. Vaught is to be sentenced, to protest the conviction. Others have stated they believe justice is being conducted, as their sympathies lie with the victim, Charlene Murphey, who died 12 hours after being unable to draw breath, paralyzed from the inadvertent dose of vecuronium given intravenously by her nurse.

How should we feel as clinicians? What does this guilty verdict mean for nurses across the country as Ms. Vaught waits to receive a sentence that could imprison her for up to 8 years, according to sentencing guidelines?

My belief is that it is understandable to feel passionately about this case, including what it could mean to an era of “just culture” that nursing organizations have promoted. The concept of just culture looks at medication/nursing errors as opportunities for growth to avoid future errors, not as scenarios for punitive action. With the guilty verdict in Ms. Vaught’s case, nurses (and facilities) fear that nurses will avoid coming forward after mistakes, leading to cover-ups and a culture perspective.

Will nurses be hesitant to report errors (especially significant errors) that lead to patient harm? Will we fear retribution and reprisal for being truthful?

I believe that Ms. Vaught’s criminal case has changed little in the political landscape of caregiving. Before you let loose with a loud expletive (or two), hear me out.

When a patient dies from unintentional harm, someone must be held accountable. Society needs a scapegoat, and unfortunately, excrement slides downhill to the lowest common denominator, which may be the nurse. Initially, Ms. Vaught was contacted by her state licensing board (Tennessee) and informed there would be no professional repercussions for her mistake. That decision did not hold. She was later indicted criminally for the death of her patient. She also had her nursing license revoked.

Why? The hospital where she worked was threatened with Medicare reprisal if systemic issues were not addressed following the incident; for example, a bar-coding device was not available for Ms. Vaught to use prior to administering the vecuronium, and paralytic agents were stored unsafely in a Pyxis MedStation, readily available for any nurse to obtain via override.

In fact, the number of overrides performed by all nurses caring for Ms. Murphey in the days leading to her death was alarming, leading reviewers to assume that time to acquire medication for inpatients was a problem.

Ms. Vaught herself, stating the obvious on talk shows, said she should not have performed an override, that the situation was “not an emergency” and she should have taken time to check that Versed (midazolam) was available by the generic name and not the “VE” she entered as a search mechanism into the machine. She also stated she was “distracted” by a trainee assigned to her at the time.

We have all been there, feeling rushed to perform a task under stressful situations, skipping safety guidelines to sedate a patient while radiology is waiting. Someone is always on our a**, waiting to get to the next task, the next patient, the next admission, the next pseudo-emergency called nursing workload.

It never ends.

Which is why I wish to emphasize what the Ms. Vaught guilty verdict really means for nurses.

It means we must never forget that our actions have the potential to harm, even kill, our patients.

We must never forget that repercussions and reprisal may occur, whether personal guilt that may prove more damaging than the prison sentence Ms. Vaught might receive, or problems that could result if nurses attempt to hide or subvert medication issues.

In Ms. Vaught’s case, she did not document the medication that had been given to Ms. Murphey, facts the prosecution seized on to proclaim her guilt. Why? We can only guess at this point. But her claims of truthfulness need to be balanced by what occurred, and the facts are that she did not document the error after administering vecuronium that night.

When reflecting on this verdict, we need to remember a patient died, and she did so horribly, being unable to draw breath. This should never happen during our watch, ever, and as clinicians, we need to be vigilant.

In summary, protest if you believe justice has been too harsh or unfair, and that nurses may be fearful as a result. But please spare a moment to realize that someone should protest for Ms. Murphey as well. We cannot bring her back, nor can we right the system issues that may have led to her death.

But we should protest for safer systems, for improved staffing, for a need to catch our collective breaths, and a day to work and nurture patients when someone is not constantly on our a**. Only then will nurses be protected from unjust reprisal, from needing to be the lowest common denominator of guilt.

Ms. Goodman is a researcher and consultant in Libertyville, Ill. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For 4 and a half years, I have followed the RaDonda Vaught medication error that led to the unfortunate death of a human being. I am not alone. Nurses across the country have followed the case with anxiety and fear, knowing a guilty verdict might have the potential to challenge basic tenets of care.

According to Kaiser Health News, nurses are “raging and quitting” following the announcement of a guilty verdict for two felonies: criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult.

Thousands of nurses have claimed they could arrive in Nashville, Tenn., on May 13, the day Ms. Vaught is to be sentenced, to protest the conviction. Others have stated they believe justice is being conducted, as their sympathies lie with the victim, Charlene Murphey, who died 12 hours after being unable to draw breath, paralyzed from the inadvertent dose of vecuronium given intravenously by her nurse.

How should we feel as clinicians? What does this guilty verdict mean for nurses across the country as Ms. Vaught waits to receive a sentence that could imprison her for up to 8 years, according to sentencing guidelines?

My belief is that it is understandable to feel passionately about this case, including what it could mean to an era of “just culture” that nursing organizations have promoted. The concept of just culture looks at medication/nursing errors as opportunities for growth to avoid future errors, not as scenarios for punitive action. With the guilty verdict in Ms. Vaught’s case, nurses (and facilities) fear that nurses will avoid coming forward after mistakes, leading to cover-ups and a culture perspective.

Will nurses be hesitant to report errors (especially significant errors) that lead to patient harm? Will we fear retribution and reprisal for being truthful?

I believe that Ms. Vaught’s criminal case has changed little in the political landscape of caregiving. Before you let loose with a loud expletive (or two), hear me out.

When a patient dies from unintentional harm, someone must be held accountable. Society needs a scapegoat, and unfortunately, excrement slides downhill to the lowest common denominator, which may be the nurse. Initially, Ms. Vaught was contacted by her state licensing board (Tennessee) and informed there would be no professional repercussions for her mistake. That decision did not hold. She was later indicted criminally for the death of her patient. She also had her nursing license revoked.

Why? The hospital where she worked was threatened with Medicare reprisal if systemic issues were not addressed following the incident; for example, a bar-coding device was not available for Ms. Vaught to use prior to administering the vecuronium, and paralytic agents were stored unsafely in a Pyxis MedStation, readily available for any nurse to obtain via override.

In fact, the number of overrides performed by all nurses caring for Ms. Murphey in the days leading to her death was alarming, leading reviewers to assume that time to acquire medication for inpatients was a problem.

Ms. Vaught herself, stating the obvious on talk shows, said she should not have performed an override, that the situation was “not an emergency” and she should have taken time to check that Versed (midazolam) was available by the generic name and not the “VE” she entered as a search mechanism into the machine. She also stated she was “distracted” by a trainee assigned to her at the time.

We have all been there, feeling rushed to perform a task under stressful situations, skipping safety guidelines to sedate a patient while radiology is waiting. Someone is always on our a**, waiting to get to the next task, the next patient, the next admission, the next pseudo-emergency called nursing workload.

It never ends.

Which is why I wish to emphasize what the Ms. Vaught guilty verdict really means for nurses.

It means we must never forget that our actions have the potential to harm, even kill, our patients.

We must never forget that repercussions and reprisal may occur, whether personal guilt that may prove more damaging than the prison sentence Ms. Vaught might receive, or problems that could result if nurses attempt to hide or subvert medication issues.

In Ms. Vaught’s case, she did not document the medication that had been given to Ms. Murphey, facts the prosecution seized on to proclaim her guilt. Why? We can only guess at this point. But her claims of truthfulness need to be balanced by what occurred, and the facts are that she did not document the error after administering vecuronium that night.

When reflecting on this verdict, we need to remember a patient died, and she did so horribly, being unable to draw breath. This should never happen during our watch, ever, and as clinicians, we need to be vigilant.

In summary, protest if you believe justice has been too harsh or unfair, and that nurses may be fearful as a result. But please spare a moment to realize that someone should protest for Ms. Murphey as well. We cannot bring her back, nor can we right the system issues that may have led to her death.

But we should protest for safer systems, for improved staffing, for a need to catch our collective breaths, and a day to work and nurture patients when someone is not constantly on our a**. Only then will nurses be protected from unjust reprisal, from needing to be the lowest common denominator of guilt.

Ms. Goodman is a researcher and consultant in Libertyville, Ill. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

Heartland virus (HRTV), an emerging infection first detected in lone star ticks in Missouri in 2009, has spread to lone star ticks in Georgia, a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases reports.

HRTV disease is transmitted by the bite of an infected Amblyomma americanum tick, named “lone star” because of the silver-white spot on the female scutum (back).

“By … sampling … in an area with reported exposure to HRTV in wildlife and humans and testing for infection in thousands of ticks from multiple sites and physiologic stages, we confirmed the presence of HRTV in Georgia,” the authors write.

“This information about the expanding geographic range of lone star ticks, combined with increased human presence in tick-infested habitats, can be used to improve strategies for preventing tick bites and to alert physicians about this emerging tickborne virus infection,” a press release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes.
 

Persistent field and lab work led to HRTV discovery in Georgia

The search for infected lone star ticks began after a retroactive analysis confirmed that a person who died in Georgia in 2005 from an unidentified illness was infected with HRTV. A subsequent analysis of serum samples collected earlier from local white-tailed deer showed that the deer had been exposed to HRTV since at least 2001, according to a press release by Emory University.

These discoveries prompted local researchers to investigate whether lone star ticks in rural, woodsy central Georgia were carrying HRTV.

Lead study author Yamila Romer, MD, an infectious disease clinician and microbiologist in the department of environmental sciences at Emory University in Atlanta, and her colleagues collected samples of ticks in 2018 at 26 sites near the location of the patient who died and the seropositive deer. In 2019, they focused their collections on the two sites that had provided the most ticks in 2018.

From April to October in both years, the research team visited sites weekly to swish white flannel flags through underbrush. They picked off adult and nymph Amblyomma americanum ticks, placed them into vials, and transported them to their lab. They sorted 9,294 ticks by sex, life stage, and collection site. Then they crushed the ticks and extracted their RNA.

To confirm viral infection, the team tested RNA extracted from cell culture supernatants using a real-time polymerase chain reaction test specific for HRTV.

In the three pools of ticks that tested positive for HRTV, the researchers found a minimum infection rate of 0.46/1,000 ticks, suggesting that about 1 of every 2,000 ticks carried HRTV. They sequenced the genome of the three isolates and found that the genomes were similar to one another but were very different from the genomes from HRTV samples taken outside Georgia.

Catherine A. Hill, PhD, a professor of entomology and vector biology and the interim head of the department of entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was impressed with the researchers’ discovery.

“Heartland virus is difficult to detect,” she said in an email. “The prevalence of human cases is low, and the virus appears to be present at very low levels in populations of lone star tick. The investigators went to some lengths to survey for the virus, collect, and process thousands of ticks – and they found the needle in the haystack.” Dr. Hill was not involved in the study.
 

Georgia data help researchers monitor HRTV spread

HRTV was first identified in 2009 in Missouri in two people hospitalized with fever, muscle pain, diarrhea, and low white blood cell and platelet counts. Researchers traced the infections to lone star ticks, and they found antibodies to the virus in blood samples from deer and other wild mammals.

According to the CDC, U.S. cases of tick-borne diseases more than doubled between 2004 and 2016. As of January 2021, more than 50 human cases of HRTV disease had been reported in 11 Midwestern and Southeastern states: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
 

Precautions, signs, symptoms, testing, and treatment

“The lone star tick is aggressive and will actively seek out a human host to bite,” Dr. Hill noted.

She recommends that health care providers advise patients to avoid tick habitat, wear protective clothing, apply repellants, know the signs and symptoms of tick-borne disease, and seek immediate medical care if they become ill.

Common symptoms of HRTV disease include fatigue, fever, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. Treatment is supportive. Many patients have been hospitalized, and some with comorbidities have died.

HRTV infection is rarely tested for, and the disease burden is unknown. With no commercial tests available in the United States, the CDC performs molecular and serologic testing for HRTV infection. The agency advises doctors to contact their state health department if they suspect a patient may have HRTV disease.
 

Further research is needed

Samantha M. Wisely, PhD, a professor of wildlife ecology and the director of the Cervidae Health Research Initiative at the University of Florida in Gainesville, was not surprised by the study finding.

“The more we look for heartland virus, the more places we find it,” Dr. Wisely told this news organization in an email.

“Little is known about which wildlife play a role in maintaining the virus on the landscape,” said Dr. Wisely, who was not involved in the study. “White-tailed deer have been shown to produce antibodies, meaning they have been exposed to the virus, but no one has actually found the virus in a wildlife species.”

The whole-genome sequencing of the virus was particularly important, Dr. Wisely explained. “Whole-genome data allow researchers to better understand viral evolution, pathogenicity, and viral dynamics across space and time – how it is evolving.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Emory University Research Council. The authors, Dr. Wisely, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Heartland virus (HRTV), an emerging infection first detected in lone star ticks in Missouri in 2009, has spread to lone star ticks in Georgia, a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases reports.

HRTV disease is transmitted by the bite of an infected Amblyomma americanum tick, named “lone star” because of the silver-white spot on the female scutum (back).

“By … sampling … in an area with reported exposure to HRTV in wildlife and humans and testing for infection in thousands of ticks from multiple sites and physiologic stages, we confirmed the presence of HRTV in Georgia,” the authors write.

“This information about the expanding geographic range of lone star ticks, combined with increased human presence in tick-infested habitats, can be used to improve strategies for preventing tick bites and to alert physicians about this emerging tickborne virus infection,” a press release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes.
 

Persistent field and lab work led to HRTV discovery in Georgia

The search for infected lone star ticks began after a retroactive analysis confirmed that a person who died in Georgia in 2005 from an unidentified illness was infected with HRTV. A subsequent analysis of serum samples collected earlier from local white-tailed deer showed that the deer had been exposed to HRTV since at least 2001, according to a press release by Emory University.

These discoveries prompted local researchers to investigate whether lone star ticks in rural, woodsy central Georgia were carrying HRTV.

Lead study author Yamila Romer, MD, an infectious disease clinician and microbiologist in the department of environmental sciences at Emory University in Atlanta, and her colleagues collected samples of ticks in 2018 at 26 sites near the location of the patient who died and the seropositive deer. In 2019, they focused their collections on the two sites that had provided the most ticks in 2018.

From April to October in both years, the research team visited sites weekly to swish white flannel flags through underbrush. They picked off adult and nymph Amblyomma americanum ticks, placed them into vials, and transported them to their lab. They sorted 9,294 ticks by sex, life stage, and collection site. Then they crushed the ticks and extracted their RNA.

To confirm viral infection, the team tested RNA extracted from cell culture supernatants using a real-time polymerase chain reaction test specific for HRTV.

In the three pools of ticks that tested positive for HRTV, the researchers found a minimum infection rate of 0.46/1,000 ticks, suggesting that about 1 of every 2,000 ticks carried HRTV. They sequenced the genome of the three isolates and found that the genomes were similar to one another but were very different from the genomes from HRTV samples taken outside Georgia.

Catherine A. Hill, PhD, a professor of entomology and vector biology and the interim head of the department of entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was impressed with the researchers’ discovery.

“Heartland virus is difficult to detect,” she said in an email. “The prevalence of human cases is low, and the virus appears to be present at very low levels in populations of lone star tick. The investigators went to some lengths to survey for the virus, collect, and process thousands of ticks – and they found the needle in the haystack.” Dr. Hill was not involved in the study.
 

Georgia data help researchers monitor HRTV spread

HRTV was first identified in 2009 in Missouri in two people hospitalized with fever, muscle pain, diarrhea, and low white blood cell and platelet counts. Researchers traced the infections to lone star ticks, and they found antibodies to the virus in blood samples from deer and other wild mammals.

According to the CDC, U.S. cases of tick-borne diseases more than doubled between 2004 and 2016. As of January 2021, more than 50 human cases of HRTV disease had been reported in 11 Midwestern and Southeastern states: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
 

Precautions, signs, symptoms, testing, and treatment

“The lone star tick is aggressive and will actively seek out a human host to bite,” Dr. Hill noted.

She recommends that health care providers advise patients to avoid tick habitat, wear protective clothing, apply repellants, know the signs and symptoms of tick-borne disease, and seek immediate medical care if they become ill.

Common symptoms of HRTV disease include fatigue, fever, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. Treatment is supportive. Many patients have been hospitalized, and some with comorbidities have died.

HRTV infection is rarely tested for, and the disease burden is unknown. With no commercial tests available in the United States, the CDC performs molecular and serologic testing for HRTV infection. The agency advises doctors to contact their state health department if they suspect a patient may have HRTV disease.
 

Further research is needed

Samantha M. Wisely, PhD, a professor of wildlife ecology and the director of the Cervidae Health Research Initiative at the University of Florida in Gainesville, was not surprised by the study finding.

“The more we look for heartland virus, the more places we find it,” Dr. Wisely told this news organization in an email.

“Little is known about which wildlife play a role in maintaining the virus on the landscape,” said Dr. Wisely, who was not involved in the study. “White-tailed deer have been shown to produce antibodies, meaning they have been exposed to the virus, but no one has actually found the virus in a wildlife species.”

The whole-genome sequencing of the virus was particularly important, Dr. Wisely explained. “Whole-genome data allow researchers to better understand viral evolution, pathogenicity, and viral dynamics across space and time – how it is evolving.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Emory University Research Council. The authors, Dr. Wisely, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Heartland virus (HRTV), an emerging infection first detected in lone star ticks in Missouri in 2009, has spread to lone star ticks in Georgia, a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases reports.

HRTV disease is transmitted by the bite of an infected Amblyomma americanum tick, named “lone star” because of the silver-white spot on the female scutum (back).

“By … sampling … in an area with reported exposure to HRTV in wildlife and humans and testing for infection in thousands of ticks from multiple sites and physiologic stages, we confirmed the presence of HRTV in Georgia,” the authors write.

“This information about the expanding geographic range of lone star ticks, combined with increased human presence in tick-infested habitats, can be used to improve strategies for preventing tick bites and to alert physicians about this emerging tickborne virus infection,” a press release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes.
 

Persistent field and lab work led to HRTV discovery in Georgia

The search for infected lone star ticks began after a retroactive analysis confirmed that a person who died in Georgia in 2005 from an unidentified illness was infected with HRTV. A subsequent analysis of serum samples collected earlier from local white-tailed deer showed that the deer had been exposed to HRTV since at least 2001, according to a press release by Emory University.

These discoveries prompted local researchers to investigate whether lone star ticks in rural, woodsy central Georgia were carrying HRTV.

Lead study author Yamila Romer, MD, an infectious disease clinician and microbiologist in the department of environmental sciences at Emory University in Atlanta, and her colleagues collected samples of ticks in 2018 at 26 sites near the location of the patient who died and the seropositive deer. In 2019, they focused their collections on the two sites that had provided the most ticks in 2018.

From April to October in both years, the research team visited sites weekly to swish white flannel flags through underbrush. They picked off adult and nymph Amblyomma americanum ticks, placed them into vials, and transported them to their lab. They sorted 9,294 ticks by sex, life stage, and collection site. Then they crushed the ticks and extracted their RNA.

To confirm viral infection, the team tested RNA extracted from cell culture supernatants using a real-time polymerase chain reaction test specific for HRTV.

In the three pools of ticks that tested positive for HRTV, the researchers found a minimum infection rate of 0.46/1,000 ticks, suggesting that about 1 of every 2,000 ticks carried HRTV. They sequenced the genome of the three isolates and found that the genomes were similar to one another but were very different from the genomes from HRTV samples taken outside Georgia.

Catherine A. Hill, PhD, a professor of entomology and vector biology and the interim head of the department of entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., was impressed with the researchers’ discovery.

“Heartland virus is difficult to detect,” she said in an email. “The prevalence of human cases is low, and the virus appears to be present at very low levels in populations of lone star tick. The investigators went to some lengths to survey for the virus, collect, and process thousands of ticks – and they found the needle in the haystack.” Dr. Hill was not involved in the study.
 

Georgia data help researchers monitor HRTV spread

HRTV was first identified in 2009 in Missouri in two people hospitalized with fever, muscle pain, diarrhea, and low white blood cell and platelet counts. Researchers traced the infections to lone star ticks, and they found antibodies to the virus in blood samples from deer and other wild mammals.

According to the CDC, U.S. cases of tick-borne diseases more than doubled between 2004 and 2016. As of January 2021, more than 50 human cases of HRTV disease had been reported in 11 Midwestern and Southeastern states: Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
 

Precautions, signs, symptoms, testing, and treatment

“The lone star tick is aggressive and will actively seek out a human host to bite,” Dr. Hill noted.

She recommends that health care providers advise patients to avoid tick habitat, wear protective clothing, apply repellants, know the signs and symptoms of tick-borne disease, and seek immediate medical care if they become ill.

Common symptoms of HRTV disease include fatigue, fever, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. Treatment is supportive. Many patients have been hospitalized, and some with comorbidities have died.

HRTV infection is rarely tested for, and the disease burden is unknown. With no commercial tests available in the United States, the CDC performs molecular and serologic testing for HRTV infection. The agency advises doctors to contact their state health department if they suspect a patient may have HRTV disease.
 

Further research is needed

Samantha M. Wisely, PhD, a professor of wildlife ecology and the director of the Cervidae Health Research Initiative at the University of Florida in Gainesville, was not surprised by the study finding.

“The more we look for heartland virus, the more places we find it,” Dr. Wisely told this news organization in an email.

“Little is known about which wildlife play a role in maintaining the virus on the landscape,” said Dr. Wisely, who was not involved in the study. “White-tailed deer have been shown to produce antibodies, meaning they have been exposed to the virus, but no one has actually found the virus in a wildlife species.”

The whole-genome sequencing of the virus was particularly important, Dr. Wisely explained. “Whole-genome data allow researchers to better understand viral evolution, pathogenicity, and viral dynamics across space and time – how it is evolving.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Emory University Research Council. The authors, Dr. Wisely, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During the first year of the pandemic, at least four people in Michigan were infected with a coronavirus variant that has been found in mink.

The cluster, which previously included three cases, marks the first known instance of likely animal-to-human “spillover” of the virus in the United States, according to the New York Times. All four people fully recovered.

Two of the infected people were employees of a mink farm in Michigan that had an outbreak in October 2020. The other two people didn’t have known links to the farm, which may mean that the coronavirus variant among mink may have been circulating more widely among residents in that area during that time.

Virus samples from all four people contained two mutations that may show signs of an adaptation to mink. The mutations have also been documented in farmed mink in Europe and people with connections to those farms.

“This, in addition to the mink farmworkers testing positive for COVID-19 after the mink herd had begun experiencing illness and increased mortality, suggests that the most likely hypothesis is that the workers were infected after contact with mink on the farm,” Casey Barton Behravesh, DVM, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health Office, told the newspaper.

But researchers are unable to prove the cause, she noted.

“Because there are few genetic sequences available from the communities around the farm, it is impossible to know for sure whether the mutations came from mink on the farm or were already circulating in the community,” she said.

In August 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mink at farms in Utah, followed by a case in Wisconsin. Worldwide, the coronavirus has been detected in mink on farms in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Spain.

In early October 2020, Michigan officials announced that the coronavirus had been detected in mink on a local farm. Several of the animals had died. The CDC helped to investigate the outbreak by collecting samples from animals, farmworkers, and residents in the community.

By March 2021, the CDC had updated its website to note that a “small number of people” had contracted a coronavirus variant that “contained unique mink-related mutations.”

In April 2021, the Detroit Free Press and the Documenting COVID-19 project first reported on the first three cases – two farmworkers and a taxidermist who didn’t have a connection to the mink farm. This week, the news outlets reported an update that the fourth case was the taxidermist’s wife.

Earlier this month, National Geographic first reported on the fourth human case based on government documents about the mink farm outbreak.

Overall, animal-to-human transmission is rare, but the CDC is continuing to monitor potential coronavirus cases in wildlife, livestock, and zoo animals for new variants and virus reservoirs, the Times reported.

“These results highlight the importance of routinely studying the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 in susceptible animal populations like mink, as well as in people,” the CDC wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

During the first year of the pandemic, at least four people in Michigan were infected with a coronavirus variant that has been found in mink.

The cluster, which previously included three cases, marks the first known instance of likely animal-to-human “spillover” of the virus in the United States, according to the New York Times. All four people fully recovered.

Two of the infected people were employees of a mink farm in Michigan that had an outbreak in October 2020. The other two people didn’t have known links to the farm, which may mean that the coronavirus variant among mink may have been circulating more widely among residents in that area during that time.

Virus samples from all four people contained two mutations that may show signs of an adaptation to mink. The mutations have also been documented in farmed mink in Europe and people with connections to those farms.

“This, in addition to the mink farmworkers testing positive for COVID-19 after the mink herd had begun experiencing illness and increased mortality, suggests that the most likely hypothesis is that the workers were infected after contact with mink on the farm,” Casey Barton Behravesh, DVM, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health Office, told the newspaper.

But researchers are unable to prove the cause, she noted.

“Because there are few genetic sequences available from the communities around the farm, it is impossible to know for sure whether the mutations came from mink on the farm or were already circulating in the community,” she said.

In August 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mink at farms in Utah, followed by a case in Wisconsin. Worldwide, the coronavirus has been detected in mink on farms in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Spain.

In early October 2020, Michigan officials announced that the coronavirus had been detected in mink on a local farm. Several of the animals had died. The CDC helped to investigate the outbreak by collecting samples from animals, farmworkers, and residents in the community.

By March 2021, the CDC had updated its website to note that a “small number of people” had contracted a coronavirus variant that “contained unique mink-related mutations.”

In April 2021, the Detroit Free Press and the Documenting COVID-19 project first reported on the first three cases – two farmworkers and a taxidermist who didn’t have a connection to the mink farm. This week, the news outlets reported an update that the fourth case was the taxidermist’s wife.

Earlier this month, National Geographic first reported on the fourth human case based on government documents about the mink farm outbreak.

Overall, animal-to-human transmission is rare, but the CDC is continuing to monitor potential coronavirus cases in wildlife, livestock, and zoo animals for new variants and virus reservoirs, the Times reported.

“These results highlight the importance of routinely studying the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 in susceptible animal populations like mink, as well as in people,” the CDC wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

During the first year of the pandemic, at least four people in Michigan were infected with a coronavirus variant that has been found in mink.

The cluster, which previously included three cases, marks the first known instance of likely animal-to-human “spillover” of the virus in the United States, according to the New York Times. All four people fully recovered.

Two of the infected people were employees of a mink farm in Michigan that had an outbreak in October 2020. The other two people didn’t have known links to the farm, which may mean that the coronavirus variant among mink may have been circulating more widely among residents in that area during that time.

Virus samples from all four people contained two mutations that may show signs of an adaptation to mink. The mutations have also been documented in farmed mink in Europe and people with connections to those farms.

“This, in addition to the mink farmworkers testing positive for COVID-19 after the mink herd had begun experiencing illness and increased mortality, suggests that the most likely hypothesis is that the workers were infected after contact with mink on the farm,” Casey Barton Behravesh, DVM, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s One Health Office, told the newspaper.

But researchers are unable to prove the cause, she noted.

“Because there are few genetic sequences available from the communities around the farm, it is impossible to know for sure whether the mutations came from mink on the farm or were already circulating in the community,” she said.

In August 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the first confirmed COVID-19 case in mink at farms in Utah, followed by a case in Wisconsin. Worldwide, the coronavirus has been detected in mink on farms in the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, and Spain.

In early October 2020, Michigan officials announced that the coronavirus had been detected in mink on a local farm. Several of the animals had died. The CDC helped to investigate the outbreak by collecting samples from animals, farmworkers, and residents in the community.

By March 2021, the CDC had updated its website to note that a “small number of people” had contracted a coronavirus variant that “contained unique mink-related mutations.”

In April 2021, the Detroit Free Press and the Documenting COVID-19 project first reported on the first three cases – two farmworkers and a taxidermist who didn’t have a connection to the mink farm. This week, the news outlets reported an update that the fourth case was the taxidermist’s wife.

Earlier this month, National Geographic first reported on the fourth human case based on government documents about the mink farm outbreak.

Overall, animal-to-human transmission is rare, but the CDC is continuing to monitor potential coronavirus cases in wildlife, livestock, and zoo animals for new variants and virus reservoirs, the Times reported.

“These results highlight the importance of routinely studying the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 in susceptible animal populations like mink, as well as in people,” the CDC wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

It was a good run while it lasted.

New COVID-19 cases in U.S. children had dropped for 11 consecutive weeks, but that streak has come to an end, as cases increased 28% during the week of April 8-14, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of reported pediatric cases for the week was 33,146, and the actual increase from the previous week was just 7,231 cases, the AAP and CHA said, but some reports suggest that the new COVID variants and subvariants are starting to have an effect on incidence in some areas while mask mandates continue to fall.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, over the last week or two, the 7-day average for percentage of emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID has risen from 0.5% to 0.6% in children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% to 0.5% among 12- to 15-year-olds, and from 0.3% to 0.4% in 16- and 17-year-olds. Small increases, to be sure, but increases nonetheless.

A somewhat similar scenario is playing out for new admissions of children aged 0-17, which have leveled out after dropping from a high of 1.25 per 100,000 population in mid-January to 0.13 per 100,000 in early April. Over the last 2 weeks, the rate has been alternating between 0.13 and 0.14 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The latest news on the vaccination front came from Pfizer and BIoNTech, which announced that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine boosted immune protection in children aged 5-11 years in a phase 2/3 trial. Protection against the Omicron strain was 36 times higher than the two previous doses, the companies said, adding that they plan to submit a request for emergency use authorization of a booster dose in the near future.

The ongoing vaccination effort, however, produced mixed results in the last week. Initial vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years fell 14.5% to another new low while initial doses were up 9.3% for those aged 12-17, the AAP said. Overall, just 28.2% of the country’s 5- to 11-year-olds are fully vaccinated, compared with 58.7% of those aged 12-17, the CDC reported.

rfranki@mdedge.com

It was a good run while it lasted.

New COVID-19 cases in U.S. children had dropped for 11 consecutive weeks, but that streak has come to an end, as cases increased 28% during the week of April 8-14, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of reported pediatric cases for the week was 33,146, and the actual increase from the previous week was just 7,231 cases, the AAP and CHA said, but some reports suggest that the new COVID variants and subvariants are starting to have an effect on incidence in some areas while mask mandates continue to fall.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, over the last week or two, the 7-day average for percentage of emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID has risen from 0.5% to 0.6% in children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% to 0.5% among 12- to 15-year-olds, and from 0.3% to 0.4% in 16- and 17-year-olds. Small increases, to be sure, but increases nonetheless.

A somewhat similar scenario is playing out for new admissions of children aged 0-17, which have leveled out after dropping from a high of 1.25 per 100,000 population in mid-January to 0.13 per 100,000 in early April. Over the last 2 weeks, the rate has been alternating between 0.13 and 0.14 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The latest news on the vaccination front came from Pfizer and BIoNTech, which announced that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine boosted immune protection in children aged 5-11 years in a phase 2/3 trial. Protection against the Omicron strain was 36 times higher than the two previous doses, the companies said, adding that they plan to submit a request for emergency use authorization of a booster dose in the near future.

The ongoing vaccination effort, however, produced mixed results in the last week. Initial vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years fell 14.5% to another new low while initial doses were up 9.3% for those aged 12-17, the AAP said. Overall, just 28.2% of the country’s 5- to 11-year-olds are fully vaccinated, compared with 58.7% of those aged 12-17, the CDC reported.

rfranki@mdedge.com

It was a good run while it lasted.

New COVID-19 cases in U.S. children had dropped for 11 consecutive weeks, but that streak has come to an end, as cases increased 28% during the week of April 8-14, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of reported pediatric cases for the week was 33,146, and the actual increase from the previous week was just 7,231 cases, the AAP and CHA said, but some reports suggest that the new COVID variants and subvariants are starting to have an effect on incidence in some areas while mask mandates continue to fall.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, over the last week or two, the 7-day average for percentage of emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID has risen from 0.5% to 0.6% in children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% to 0.5% among 12- to 15-year-olds, and from 0.3% to 0.4% in 16- and 17-year-olds. Small increases, to be sure, but increases nonetheless.

A somewhat similar scenario is playing out for new admissions of children aged 0-17, which have leveled out after dropping from a high of 1.25 per 100,000 population in mid-January to 0.13 per 100,000 in early April. Over the last 2 weeks, the rate has been alternating between 0.13 and 0.14 per 100,000, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The latest news on the vaccination front came from Pfizer and BIoNTech, which announced that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine boosted immune protection in children aged 5-11 years in a phase 2/3 trial. Protection against the Omicron strain was 36 times higher than the two previous doses, the companies said, adding that they plan to submit a request for emergency use authorization of a booster dose in the near future.

The ongoing vaccination effort, however, produced mixed results in the last week. Initial vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years fell 14.5% to another new low while initial doses were up 9.3% for those aged 12-17, the AAP said. Overall, just 28.2% of the country’s 5- to 11-year-olds are fully vaccinated, compared with 58.7% of those aged 12-17, the CDC reported.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Although it disputed the allegations, Saint James School of Medicine has settled a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission that the school used deceptive marketing tactics to lure students. The complaint referenced the school’s medical license exam test pass rate and residency matches along with violations of rules that protect consumers, including those dealing with credit contracts.

The school, based in the Caribbean with operations in Illinois, agreed to pay $1.2 million toward refunds and debt cancellation for students harmed by the marketing in the past 5 years.

“While we strongly disagree with the FTC’s approach to this matter, we did not want a lengthy legal process to distract from our mission of providing a quality medical education at an affordable cost,” Kaushik Guha, executive vice president of the parent of the school, Human Resources Development Services, said in a YouTube statement posted on the school’s website.

“Saint James lured students by lying about their chances of success,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press release. The settlement agreement was with HRDS, which bills itself as providing students from “non-traditional backgrounds the opportunity to pursue a medical degree and practice in the U.S. or Canada,” according to the school’s statement.

The complaint alleges that, since at least April 2018, the school, HRDS, and its operator Mr. Guha has lured students using “phony claims about the standardized test pass rate and students’ residency or job prospects. They lured consumers with false guarantees of student success at passing a critical medical school standardized test, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Exam.”

For example, a brochure distributed at open houses claimed a first-time Step 1 pass rate of about 96.8%. The brochure further claimed: “Saint James is the first and only medical school to offer a USMLE Step 1 Pass Guarantee,” according to the FTC complaint.

The FTC said the USMLE rate is lower than touted and lower than reported by other U.S. and Canadian medical schools. “Since 2017, only 35% of Saint James students who have completed the necessary coursework to take the USMLE Step 1 exam passed the test.”

The school also misrepresented the residency match rate as “the same” as American medical schools, according to the complaint. For example, the school instructed telemarketers to tell consumers that the match rate for the school’s students was 85%-90%. The school stated on its website that the residency match rate for Saint James students was 83%. “In fact, the match rate for SJSM students is lower than touted and lower than that reported by U.S. medical schools. Since 2018, defendants’ average match rate has been 63%.”

The FTC also claims the school used illegal credit contracts when marketing financing for tuition and living expenses for students. “The financing contracts contained language attempting to waive consumers’ rights under federal law and omit legally mandated disclosures.”

Saint James’ tuition ranges from about $6,650 to $9,859 per trimester, depending on campus and course study, the complaint states. Between 2016 and 2020, about 1,300 students were enrolled each year in Saint James’ schools. Students who attended the schools between 2016 and 2022 are eligible for a refund under the settlement.

Saint James is required to notify consumers whose debts are being canceled through Delta Financial Solutions, Saint James’ financing partner. The debt will also be deleted from consumers’ credit reports.

“We have chosen to settle with the FTC over its allegations that disclosures on our website and in Delta’s loan agreements were insufficient,” Mr. Guha stated on the school website. “However, we have added additional language and clarifications any time the USMLE pass rate and placement rates are mentioned.”

He said he hopes the school will be “an industry leader for transparency and accountability” and that the school’s “efforts will lead to lasting change throughout the for-profit educational industry.”

Mr. Guha added that more than 600 of the school’s alumni are serving as doctors, including many “working to bridge the health equity gap in underserved areas in North America.”

The FTC has been cracking down on deceptive practices by for-profit institutions. In October, the FTC put 70 for-profit colleges on notice that it would investigate false promises the schools make about their graduates’ job prospects, expected earnings, and other educational outcomes and would levy significant financial penalties against violators. Saint James was not on that list, which included several of the largest for-profit universities in the nation, including Capella University, DeVry University, Strayer University, and Walden University.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although it disputed the allegations, Saint James School of Medicine has settled a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission that the school used deceptive marketing tactics to lure students. The complaint referenced the school’s medical license exam test pass rate and residency matches along with violations of rules that protect consumers, including those dealing with credit contracts.

The school, based in the Caribbean with operations in Illinois, agreed to pay $1.2 million toward refunds and debt cancellation for students harmed by the marketing in the past 5 years.

“While we strongly disagree with the FTC’s approach to this matter, we did not want a lengthy legal process to distract from our mission of providing a quality medical education at an affordable cost,” Kaushik Guha, executive vice president of the parent of the school, Human Resources Development Services, said in a YouTube statement posted on the school’s website.

“Saint James lured students by lying about their chances of success,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press release. The settlement agreement was with HRDS, which bills itself as providing students from “non-traditional backgrounds the opportunity to pursue a medical degree and practice in the U.S. or Canada,” according to the school’s statement.

The complaint alleges that, since at least April 2018, the school, HRDS, and its operator Mr. Guha has lured students using “phony claims about the standardized test pass rate and students’ residency or job prospects. They lured consumers with false guarantees of student success at passing a critical medical school standardized test, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Exam.”

For example, a brochure distributed at open houses claimed a first-time Step 1 pass rate of about 96.8%. The brochure further claimed: “Saint James is the first and only medical school to offer a USMLE Step 1 Pass Guarantee,” according to the FTC complaint.

The FTC said the USMLE rate is lower than touted and lower than reported by other U.S. and Canadian medical schools. “Since 2017, only 35% of Saint James students who have completed the necessary coursework to take the USMLE Step 1 exam passed the test.”

The school also misrepresented the residency match rate as “the same” as American medical schools, according to the complaint. For example, the school instructed telemarketers to tell consumers that the match rate for the school’s students was 85%-90%. The school stated on its website that the residency match rate for Saint James students was 83%. “In fact, the match rate for SJSM students is lower than touted and lower than that reported by U.S. medical schools. Since 2018, defendants’ average match rate has been 63%.”

The FTC also claims the school used illegal credit contracts when marketing financing for tuition and living expenses for students. “The financing contracts contained language attempting to waive consumers’ rights under federal law and omit legally mandated disclosures.”

Saint James’ tuition ranges from about $6,650 to $9,859 per trimester, depending on campus and course study, the complaint states. Between 2016 and 2020, about 1,300 students were enrolled each year in Saint James’ schools. Students who attended the schools between 2016 and 2022 are eligible for a refund under the settlement.

Saint James is required to notify consumers whose debts are being canceled through Delta Financial Solutions, Saint James’ financing partner. The debt will also be deleted from consumers’ credit reports.

“We have chosen to settle with the FTC over its allegations that disclosures on our website and in Delta’s loan agreements were insufficient,” Mr. Guha stated on the school website. “However, we have added additional language and clarifications any time the USMLE pass rate and placement rates are mentioned.”

He said he hopes the school will be “an industry leader for transparency and accountability” and that the school’s “efforts will lead to lasting change throughout the for-profit educational industry.”

Mr. Guha added that more than 600 of the school’s alumni are serving as doctors, including many “working to bridge the health equity gap in underserved areas in North America.”

The FTC has been cracking down on deceptive practices by for-profit institutions. In October, the FTC put 70 for-profit colleges on notice that it would investigate false promises the schools make about their graduates’ job prospects, expected earnings, and other educational outcomes and would levy significant financial penalties against violators. Saint James was not on that list, which included several of the largest for-profit universities in the nation, including Capella University, DeVry University, Strayer University, and Walden University.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although it disputed the allegations, Saint James School of Medicine has settled a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission that the school used deceptive marketing tactics to lure students. The complaint referenced the school’s medical license exam test pass rate and residency matches along with violations of rules that protect consumers, including those dealing with credit contracts.

The school, based in the Caribbean with operations in Illinois, agreed to pay $1.2 million toward refunds and debt cancellation for students harmed by the marketing in the past 5 years.

“While we strongly disagree with the FTC’s approach to this matter, we did not want a lengthy legal process to distract from our mission of providing a quality medical education at an affordable cost,” Kaushik Guha, executive vice president of the parent of the school, Human Resources Development Services, said in a YouTube statement posted on the school’s website.

“Saint James lured students by lying about their chances of success,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press release. The settlement agreement was with HRDS, which bills itself as providing students from “non-traditional backgrounds the opportunity to pursue a medical degree and practice in the U.S. or Canada,” according to the school’s statement.

The complaint alleges that, since at least April 2018, the school, HRDS, and its operator Mr. Guha has lured students using “phony claims about the standardized test pass rate and students’ residency or job prospects. They lured consumers with false guarantees of student success at passing a critical medical school standardized test, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Exam.”

For example, a brochure distributed at open houses claimed a first-time Step 1 pass rate of about 96.8%. The brochure further claimed: “Saint James is the first and only medical school to offer a USMLE Step 1 Pass Guarantee,” according to the FTC complaint.

The FTC said the USMLE rate is lower than touted and lower than reported by other U.S. and Canadian medical schools. “Since 2017, only 35% of Saint James students who have completed the necessary coursework to take the USMLE Step 1 exam passed the test.”

The school also misrepresented the residency match rate as “the same” as American medical schools, according to the complaint. For example, the school instructed telemarketers to tell consumers that the match rate for the school’s students was 85%-90%. The school stated on its website that the residency match rate for Saint James students was 83%. “In fact, the match rate for SJSM students is lower than touted and lower than that reported by U.S. medical schools. Since 2018, defendants’ average match rate has been 63%.”

The FTC also claims the school used illegal credit contracts when marketing financing for tuition and living expenses for students. “The financing contracts contained language attempting to waive consumers’ rights under federal law and omit legally mandated disclosures.”

Saint James’ tuition ranges from about $6,650 to $9,859 per trimester, depending on campus and course study, the complaint states. Between 2016 and 2020, about 1,300 students were enrolled each year in Saint James’ schools. Students who attended the schools between 2016 and 2022 are eligible for a refund under the settlement.

Saint James is required to notify consumers whose debts are being canceled through Delta Financial Solutions, Saint James’ financing partner. The debt will also be deleted from consumers’ credit reports.

“We have chosen to settle with the FTC over its allegations that disclosures on our website and in Delta’s loan agreements were insufficient,” Mr. Guha stated on the school website. “However, we have added additional language and clarifications any time the USMLE pass rate and placement rates are mentioned.”

He said he hopes the school will be “an industry leader for transparency and accountability” and that the school’s “efforts will lead to lasting change throughout the for-profit educational industry.”

Mr. Guha added that more than 600 of the school’s alumni are serving as doctors, including many “working to bridge the health equity gap in underserved areas in North America.”

The FTC has been cracking down on deceptive practices by for-profit institutions. In October, the FTC put 70 for-profit colleges on notice that it would investigate false promises the schools make about their graduates’ job prospects, expected earnings, and other educational outcomes and would levy significant financial penalties against violators. Saint James was not on that list, which included several of the largest for-profit universities in the nation, including Capella University, DeVry University, Strayer University, and Walden University.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older age and higher ferritin levels at hospital admission predict severe illness in COVID-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), according to a Canadian multicenter cohort study.

The adjusted absolute risk for admission to an intensive care unit was 43.6% among children aged 6 years and older and 46.2% in children aged 13 to 17 years, compared with 18.4% in children aged 5 years or younger.

“We do not understand why teens get more severe MIS-C than younger children,” senior author Joan Robinson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, told this news organization. “It is possible that more exposures to other coronaviruses in the past result in them having a more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, which results in more inflammation.”

The data were published  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

A multinational study

The study included data on 232 children admitted with probable or confirmed MIS-C at 15 hospitals in Canada, Iran, and Costa Rica between March 1, 2020, and March 7, 2021. The median age of the children was 5.8 years, 56.0% were boys, and 21.6% had comorbidities.

Although cardiac involvement was common (58.6%), and almost one-third of the cohort (31.5%) was admitted to an ICU, “recovery was typically rapid, with 85% of patients discharged within 10 days,” said Dr. Robinson, for the Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC).
 

Older age as a risk

The results suggest that older age is associated with increased risk of severe MIS-C. “However, one would then predict that adults would be at even higher risk than teens, whereas the same syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is very, very rare,” said Dr. Robinson.

The study also found that children admitted with ferritin levels greater than 500 μg/L, signaling greater inflammation, also had an increased risk for ICU admission, compared with those with lower levels (adjusted risk difference, 18.4%; relative risk, 1.69). “This is presumably because the more inflammation that the child has, the more likely they are to have inflammation of the heart, which can lead to low blood pressure,” said Dr. Robinson.
 

Features of MIS-C

Among all patients with MIS-C, gastrointestinal involvement was common (89.2%), as were mucocutaneous findings (84.5%). Children with MIS-C had fever for a median duration of 6 days. “Clinicians who see children in their practice commonly have to determine why a child is febrile. Our study shows that one mainly has to consider MIS-C if febrile children have a rash and one or more of vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal pain,” said Dr. Robinson. 

The study also found that patients with MIS-C who were admitted to the hospital in the latter part of the study period (Nov. 1, 2020, to March 7, 2021) were slightly more likely to require ICU admission, compared with those admitted between March 1 and Oct. 31, 2020. “We cannot provide a clear explanation [for this],” the authors noted. “The features of severe MIS-C were widely publicized by May 2020, so it seems unlikely that severe cases were missed early in the study period. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have replaced the wild-type virus. It is possible that the immune response to circulating variants alters the severity of COVID-19 and MIS-C, when compared with wild-type virus.”

Despite initial concerns that pediatric COVID-19 vaccines might cause MIS-C, Dr. Robinson says data suggest this is rarely, if ever, the case, and that vaccines actually prevent the syndrome. She says further studies will be needed to assess MIS-C risk following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. “I am an optimistic person, and it is my hope that MIS-C following reinfection is rare,” she said. “If this is the case, perhaps we will see very few cases once almost all children have been immunized and/or had SARS-CoV-2 infection.”  
 

‘Differences across countries’

Adrienne Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and senior author of a large case series of patients with MIS-C, said that the Canadian study is valuable because it includes children from three countries. “It’s very interesting that there are differences across countries,” she said. “The patients in Iran had the highest percentage (58.7%) going into the ICU, whereas Costa Rica had the lowest percentage (9.2%), and the percentage going to the ICU in Canada (34.7%) was less than the percentages we see in the U.S. – which is pretty consistently about 60% to 70% of MIS-C patients going into the ICU.” Dr. Randolph was not involved in the current study.

Reasons for differences in the rates of ICU visits will be important to explore in the effort to standardize diagnostic criteria, stratification of severity, and recommendations for treatment of MIS-C, said Dr. Randolph.

“What is consistent is that the younger kids, zero to 5 years, in general are less ill,” she said. “That’s been consistent across multiple countries.” It’s unclear whether the cause of this difference is that parents observe younger patients more closely than they do teenagers, or whether other aspects of adolescence, such as prevalence of obesity and attendant inflammation, are at work, said Dr. Randolph.

What is also unclear is why hospitalized patients with MIS-C had higher percentages of ICU admission in the latter part of the study period, compared with the earlier period. “Did the patients change, or did practice change as we got to understand the disease process?” asked Dr. Randolph. “It could be that they got better at the diagnosis and were weeding out some of the patients who they realized didn’t need to be hospitalized. At the very beginning, we had a very low threshold to admit patients, because we didn’t know, and then, over time, people understood what was going on and felt more comfortable monitoring them as outpatients.”

This study was partially funded by a Janeway Foundation Research Grant to support data collection. Dr. Robinson disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Randolph reported receiving royalties from UpToDate and personal fees from the La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older age and higher ferritin levels at hospital admission predict severe illness in COVID-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), according to a Canadian multicenter cohort study.

The adjusted absolute risk for admission to an intensive care unit was 43.6% among children aged 6 years and older and 46.2% in children aged 13 to 17 years, compared with 18.4% in children aged 5 years or younger.

“We do not understand why teens get more severe MIS-C than younger children,” senior author Joan Robinson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, told this news organization. “It is possible that more exposures to other coronaviruses in the past result in them having a more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, which results in more inflammation.”

The data were published  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

A multinational study

The study included data on 232 children admitted with probable or confirmed MIS-C at 15 hospitals in Canada, Iran, and Costa Rica between March 1, 2020, and March 7, 2021. The median age of the children was 5.8 years, 56.0% were boys, and 21.6% had comorbidities.

Although cardiac involvement was common (58.6%), and almost one-third of the cohort (31.5%) was admitted to an ICU, “recovery was typically rapid, with 85% of patients discharged within 10 days,” said Dr. Robinson, for the Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC).
 

Older age as a risk

The results suggest that older age is associated with increased risk of severe MIS-C. “However, one would then predict that adults would be at even higher risk than teens, whereas the same syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is very, very rare,” said Dr. Robinson.

The study also found that children admitted with ferritin levels greater than 500 μg/L, signaling greater inflammation, also had an increased risk for ICU admission, compared with those with lower levels (adjusted risk difference, 18.4%; relative risk, 1.69). “This is presumably because the more inflammation that the child has, the more likely they are to have inflammation of the heart, which can lead to low blood pressure,” said Dr. Robinson.
 

Features of MIS-C

Among all patients with MIS-C, gastrointestinal involvement was common (89.2%), as were mucocutaneous findings (84.5%). Children with MIS-C had fever for a median duration of 6 days. “Clinicians who see children in their practice commonly have to determine why a child is febrile. Our study shows that one mainly has to consider MIS-C if febrile children have a rash and one or more of vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal pain,” said Dr. Robinson. 

The study also found that patients with MIS-C who were admitted to the hospital in the latter part of the study period (Nov. 1, 2020, to March 7, 2021) were slightly more likely to require ICU admission, compared with those admitted between March 1 and Oct. 31, 2020. “We cannot provide a clear explanation [for this],” the authors noted. “The features of severe MIS-C were widely publicized by May 2020, so it seems unlikely that severe cases were missed early in the study period. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have replaced the wild-type virus. It is possible that the immune response to circulating variants alters the severity of COVID-19 and MIS-C, when compared with wild-type virus.”

Despite initial concerns that pediatric COVID-19 vaccines might cause MIS-C, Dr. Robinson says data suggest this is rarely, if ever, the case, and that vaccines actually prevent the syndrome. She says further studies will be needed to assess MIS-C risk following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. “I am an optimistic person, and it is my hope that MIS-C following reinfection is rare,” she said. “If this is the case, perhaps we will see very few cases once almost all children have been immunized and/or had SARS-CoV-2 infection.”  
 

‘Differences across countries’

Adrienne Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and senior author of a large case series of patients with MIS-C, said that the Canadian study is valuable because it includes children from three countries. “It’s very interesting that there are differences across countries,” she said. “The patients in Iran had the highest percentage (58.7%) going into the ICU, whereas Costa Rica had the lowest percentage (9.2%), and the percentage going to the ICU in Canada (34.7%) was less than the percentages we see in the U.S. – which is pretty consistently about 60% to 70% of MIS-C patients going into the ICU.” Dr. Randolph was not involved in the current study.

Reasons for differences in the rates of ICU visits will be important to explore in the effort to standardize diagnostic criteria, stratification of severity, and recommendations for treatment of MIS-C, said Dr. Randolph.

“What is consistent is that the younger kids, zero to 5 years, in general are less ill,” she said. “That’s been consistent across multiple countries.” It’s unclear whether the cause of this difference is that parents observe younger patients more closely than they do teenagers, or whether other aspects of adolescence, such as prevalence of obesity and attendant inflammation, are at work, said Dr. Randolph.

What is also unclear is why hospitalized patients with MIS-C had higher percentages of ICU admission in the latter part of the study period, compared with the earlier period. “Did the patients change, or did practice change as we got to understand the disease process?” asked Dr. Randolph. “It could be that they got better at the diagnosis and were weeding out some of the patients who they realized didn’t need to be hospitalized. At the very beginning, we had a very low threshold to admit patients, because we didn’t know, and then, over time, people understood what was going on and felt more comfortable monitoring them as outpatients.”

This study was partially funded by a Janeway Foundation Research Grant to support data collection. Dr. Robinson disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Randolph reported receiving royalties from UpToDate and personal fees from the La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older age and higher ferritin levels at hospital admission predict severe illness in COVID-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), according to a Canadian multicenter cohort study.

The adjusted absolute risk for admission to an intensive care unit was 43.6% among children aged 6 years and older and 46.2% in children aged 13 to 17 years, compared with 18.4% in children aged 5 years or younger.

“We do not understand why teens get more severe MIS-C than younger children,” senior author Joan Robinson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, told this news organization. “It is possible that more exposures to other coronaviruses in the past result in them having a more robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, which results in more inflammation.”

The data were published  in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

A multinational study

The study included data on 232 children admitted with probable or confirmed MIS-C at 15 hospitals in Canada, Iran, and Costa Rica between March 1, 2020, and March 7, 2021. The median age of the children was 5.8 years, 56.0% were boys, and 21.6% had comorbidities.

Although cardiac involvement was common (58.6%), and almost one-third of the cohort (31.5%) was admitted to an ICU, “recovery was typically rapid, with 85% of patients discharged within 10 days,” said Dr. Robinson, for the Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC).
 

Older age as a risk

The results suggest that older age is associated with increased risk of severe MIS-C. “However, one would then predict that adults would be at even higher risk than teens, whereas the same syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is very, very rare,” said Dr. Robinson.

The study also found that children admitted with ferritin levels greater than 500 μg/L, signaling greater inflammation, also had an increased risk for ICU admission, compared with those with lower levels (adjusted risk difference, 18.4%; relative risk, 1.69). “This is presumably because the more inflammation that the child has, the more likely they are to have inflammation of the heart, which can lead to low blood pressure,” said Dr. Robinson.
 

Features of MIS-C

Among all patients with MIS-C, gastrointestinal involvement was common (89.2%), as were mucocutaneous findings (84.5%). Children with MIS-C had fever for a median duration of 6 days. “Clinicians who see children in their practice commonly have to determine why a child is febrile. Our study shows that one mainly has to consider MIS-C if febrile children have a rash and one or more of vomiting, diarrhea, or abdominal pain,” said Dr. Robinson. 

The study also found that patients with MIS-C who were admitted to the hospital in the latter part of the study period (Nov. 1, 2020, to March 7, 2021) were slightly more likely to require ICU admission, compared with those admitted between March 1 and Oct. 31, 2020. “We cannot provide a clear explanation [for this],” the authors noted. “The features of severe MIS-C were widely publicized by May 2020, so it seems unlikely that severe cases were missed early in the study period. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have replaced the wild-type virus. It is possible that the immune response to circulating variants alters the severity of COVID-19 and MIS-C, when compared with wild-type virus.”

Despite initial concerns that pediatric COVID-19 vaccines might cause MIS-C, Dr. Robinson says data suggest this is rarely, if ever, the case, and that vaccines actually prevent the syndrome. She says further studies will be needed to assess MIS-C risk following reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. “I am an optimistic person, and it is my hope that MIS-C following reinfection is rare,” she said. “If this is the case, perhaps we will see very few cases once almost all children have been immunized and/or had SARS-CoV-2 infection.”  
 

‘Differences across countries’

Adrienne Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and senior author of a large case series of patients with MIS-C, said that the Canadian study is valuable because it includes children from three countries. “It’s very interesting that there are differences across countries,” she said. “The patients in Iran had the highest percentage (58.7%) going into the ICU, whereas Costa Rica had the lowest percentage (9.2%), and the percentage going to the ICU in Canada (34.7%) was less than the percentages we see in the U.S. – which is pretty consistently about 60% to 70% of MIS-C patients going into the ICU.” Dr. Randolph was not involved in the current study.

Reasons for differences in the rates of ICU visits will be important to explore in the effort to standardize diagnostic criteria, stratification of severity, and recommendations for treatment of MIS-C, said Dr. Randolph.

“What is consistent is that the younger kids, zero to 5 years, in general are less ill,” she said. “That’s been consistent across multiple countries.” It’s unclear whether the cause of this difference is that parents observe younger patients more closely than they do teenagers, or whether other aspects of adolescence, such as prevalence of obesity and attendant inflammation, are at work, said Dr. Randolph.

What is also unclear is why hospitalized patients with MIS-C had higher percentages of ICU admission in the latter part of the study period, compared with the earlier period. “Did the patients change, or did practice change as we got to understand the disease process?” asked Dr. Randolph. “It could be that they got better at the diagnosis and were weeding out some of the patients who they realized didn’t need to be hospitalized. At the very beginning, we had a very low threshold to admit patients, because we didn’t know, and then, over time, people understood what was going on and felt more comfortable monitoring them as outpatients.”

This study was partially funded by a Janeway Foundation Research Grant to support data collection. Dr. Robinson disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Randolph reported receiving royalties from UpToDate and personal fees from the La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.